LOL - Peta to buy (a) Sea World?

Remember these are the same people who tried to market "vegan pet food" at one time. Maybe they still do, I don't know. I guess they think ALL animals should be vegans too. Yeah, right. I can just picture trying to turn my cats into vegans. ;)

These are also some of the same people who put death threats on Ted Nugent's kids because he produced some educational hunting videos. I know not everyone in PETA are psychos and I respect anyone's beliefs, just don't tell ME what I can or cannot eat.

I always say if they REALLY want to help animals they need to help support the humane societies and animal hospitals, not wasting it on making "Unhappy Meal" boxes while harassing people and traumatizing little kids outside of McDonald's.

I think it's all bull*** as well. The animals would die whether they are realeased back into the ocean or whether they decided to keep them in the park. I mean think about it. Most sealife eat meat don't they? What would they feed them? Apples and lettuce? ;) It's hypocrisy at it's worst.

-Tina

*** Edited 8/22/2008 10:23:36 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***

---

d_port_12E said:

Again, why wouldn't you want attention for your cause and organization??

---

There's such a thing as negative attention. If PETA wanted to get positive attention, they'd hire Michael Vick (when he's released from jail) to speak out against dogfighting. Positive attention doesn't come from announcing a plan to buy Sea World so the animals can be released into the wild where they'd have no chance of survival. Saying crap like that makes the PETA people seem like a bunch of emotional freaks floating above reality.

1. I find it hard to believe its negative press, especially in a society full of special interest hungry for attention.

2. How is it negative? Because you like roller coasters? If PETA did purchase Sea World it would be one less park caging animals, taming them and essentially making them unfit for their NATURAL habitat.

You make it sound as if Sea World is a cancer on nature. Do your research and take note of how much Busch regularly contributes to various programs that benefit the health and well-being of animals in the wild. For all the things that PETA should be worried about, Sea World certainly doesn't come close to being at the top of the list.

Explain to me how taking wild animals that have grown up and flourished in captivity can suddenly be released into the wild and expected to survive on their own? Do you think marine life that is used to being handed food for performing tricks is going to be able to survive in the oceans against other animals that have been forced to fend for themselves?

All I can say is that whenever there is a sick or injured marine animal near San Diego, Sea World is the organization that takes care of them.

I used to support PETA until they came out against having pets. Man, I wish I were treated as well as I treat my doggies!

There is such thing as going too far one way or another. And even if your intentions are noble, you'll end up turning off more people to your ideas than illuminating.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not against animals- in fact, I think I like more animals than people ;) It's just that there's such a thing as going too far and when you do that, you lose people that would otherwise support you. PETA also lost me when they spoke out about having pets. No one could ever argue with the quality of the life our cats get to enjoy.

Certainly, many domesticated breeds of animal are much better adapted to life with humans than existence in the wild. Can you imagine trying to release hundreds of guinea pigs from a lab into the wilderness? The image would almost be comical if it weren't so tragic.

PETA is one of those organizations that are theoretically noble in their mission, but end up so shrill in their stridency that they turn off most of the people they want to convince.

PETA>>>> LOL
Let's set all the SeaWorld animals free to either feast or be devoured. Let's forget about the educational value of places like SeaWorld and Zoos. If they wish to set the animals free, (which i heard on the radio this morning) is that saying they cannot ethically take care of those animals themselves?

I love cows.
I'll take mine rare, please. *** Edited 8/22/2008 5:29:29 PM UTC by FLYINGSCOOTER***

If it weren't for Sea World how would I see Penguins?

I, personally love animals. I, personally am a vegetarian (mostly for dieting, and I still eat seafood)- Also, I'm not vegan - HUGE difference. I, personally love going to the zoo to see animals. I, personally have 2 cats, one dog, a saltwater aquarium and the possibility of owning a mated pair of African grays.

My soon-to-be father in law is an avid hunter and has taxidermy all over his house, and I love it. I think deer are adorable, and I'm not a hunter but I don't have a problem with someone who does.

Cedar Point has a petting zoo, that I visit every time I'm there. I've watched goats grow up over the years, and I've seen the bonds that they, and the cows, have with their human caretakers. I think it's absolutely amazing to see a goat jump into the arms of an employee because it wants to be held, or a baby cow that wrestles and plays like a puppy.

Animals don't hate us, and when given proper care, can live perfectly happy lives in captivity. Take an animal that's become bonded with it's caretaker and put it in the wild, and not only is it going to starve because it isn't used to getting its own food, but it's going to be constantly looking for that connection that it will never have.

If you really want to see something amazing, read this story about Christian the Lion:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/christian.asp

---

Mamoosh said:
If it weren't for Sea World how would I see Penguins?

---

The original Batman TV series? Wack-wack-wack! ;)

Or drive to Pittsburgh . . .

I support PETA... People EATING Tasty Animals! Carnivores rule!

---

d_port_12E said:2. How is it negative? Because you like roller coasters? If PETA did purchase Sea World it would be one less park caging animals, taming them and essentially making them unfit for their NATURAL habitat.

---

Uh-oh, we have an ALF memeber! ;)

SeaWorld since 1995 has stopped all capture-for-entertainment. All new animals come from ones bread already in captivity.

I maintain 100% that the only way to properly educate people about animals is to show them in person, and zoos and SeaWorld are economical and safe ways to do this. Jumping through hoops on the other hand....

^ - I believe they also take in those animals which have been injured, and upon rehabilitation are unable to return their native habitat.

But you're right, they aren't trolling the seas looking for healthy animals to put on display. And the best way to learn is to see it first hand, not pictures in a book or some video on a website.

Most Zoos are the same way. Even being co-operative breeders to where Zoo A, will borrow Zoo B's stud to breed a litter where an animal or two (once properly weaned) will go to Zoo C.

Ironically, someone named after a rodent sez: SeaWorld since 1995 has stopped all capture-for-entertainment. All new animals come from ones bread already in captivity.

Way to go, Mole! Now you're ruined d_port_12E's argument. You're such a party-pooper ;)

The bottom line of Peta is a money grab while convincing their members that what they do is good for animals while in all actuallity most policies and hunting bans ect they get implimented cause more damage to both animals and humans with starvation, overpopulation ect.

Thats not to say a hunting limit or fishing limit is bad for areas. PETA would have it eliminated completely.

Chuck, who feels the same about MADD, The heads of this global warming thing and Govt.

My family and I love visiting zoos and aquariums. (We are going to the Bronx Zoo tomorrow.) I also eat meat and vegetables because I hate both animals and plants!

On a serious note, my only complaints about animal-related attractions are when the location and surroundings are harmful to the animals.

Sea World goes through great lenghs to match the animals with thier proper surroundings. The New York Aquarium and the New England Aqarium do the same.

When you put a "trained" tiger on a Las Vegas stage with smoke and spot and strobe lights, it's still not really a situation that is best for the animal.

I often wonder if the tigers at Great Adventure are truly "happy" with the constant crowds and theme music. (Although if they would release a zebra or two into the pens after a few days of fasting, I think they could upcharge for an extreme attraction.)

Several years ago when I was at the Cedar Point farm animal petting area, a goat started eating the pocket liner from my shorts. He/she (I didn't get a close look) wouldn't let go. It was a funny moment that we still laugh about today. Just don't wear a bathing suit with a drawstring in there. (In csae he wants seconds!)

---

Richie Reflux said:
My family and I love visiting zoos and aquariums. (We are going to the Bronx Zoo tomorrow.) I also eat meat and vegetables because I hate both animals and plants!

On a serious note, my only complaints about animal-related attractions are when the location and surroundings are harmful to the animals.

Sea World goes through great lenghs to match the animals with thier proper surroundings. The New York Aquarium and the New England Aqarium do the same.

When you put a "trained" tiger on a Las Vegas stage with smoke and spot and strobe lights, it's still not really a situation that is best for the animal.

I often wonder if the tigers at Great Adventure are truly "happy" with the constant crowds and theme music. (Although if they would release a zebra or two into the pens after a few days of fasting, I think they could upcharge for an extreme attraction.)

Several years ago when I was at the Cedar Point farm animal petting area, a goat started eating the pocket liner from my shorts. He/she (I didn't get a close look) wouldn't let go. It was a funny moment that we still laugh about today. Just don't wear a bathing suit with a drawstring in there. (In case he wants seconds!)

---

---

rollergator said:Andy and b-deb make some VERY valid points. But this is America! I continue to eat meat (for now at least), but I do respect the fact that 6.3+billion people on the planet can do a lot of devastation. The more meat people eat, and the more people there are, the more vegatation is needed to sustain them. Meat requires unbelievable amounts of vegetation and water to produce. FWIW, beef consumes more resources to produce, pound for pound, than pork or chicken. Literally tons of feed and thousands of gallons of water are used to produce a cow or a pig. Ecologically speaking, the wastefulness of meat consumption is exceptionally hard on the planet. Petrochemicals and energy use involved in fertilizer production alone is staggering.We can keep going...for now. But like the oil situation, there WILL be an endpoint. Humans are conditioned to think in terms of their individual lifespan. The planet will go on after we're all turned back into (natural) fertilizer.OK, flame away....from your Hummers!

---

Gee Gator, Beef, Ethanol? Same thing? One is supposed to be good for the environment :) B.S.

Chuck, sometimes the solutions are no better than the problem itself.